The election has happened. America has spoken. The rest of the world should listen. The fact of the matter is that President Bush is there for four years". These were the words spoken by Prime Minister Blair. And let's admit it he is right.

Realistically everyone had an inkling that Bush would do it. Despite Kerry's poise, intellect and genuine flair with words, he lost the election to the President.

But how did that happen the world asks? How did the man who spells potato with an 'e' get to be the head of the most powerful country in the world again?

Jittery Americans poured into the nearest polling booth to cast their votes for the 'right man'. But will Bush live up to the promises he made on his campaign journey, or will they remain as idle as himself?

He promised the Americans security. But has that not been lost since he was in the White House? The country now stands in isolation, its people crying out for protection.

Bush's career began in 2001, not soon after the 9/11 attacks. He went tromping into Afghanistan, with an agenda of his own, bombing mountains purporting to look for his fiend Osama. Neither did he find Osama nor did he find oil.

Iraq was next on the Bush mind. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction he cried. Our own Prime Minster Blair stood shoulder to shoulder with him, appearing hypnotised by Bush's conviction. Both nations went into Saddam's country with manpower and weapons only to concede a short time later that there were no weapons present. None found. Oh but the 'potential to create' them was there.

Every country has the potential to create weapons. I asked this question to a very learned friend who advised that such countries comply with all regulations relating to the manufacture of such weapons.

They adopt an approach that allows all other countries to see what cards they have. Foul excuse I contend.

Where will the Bushfire flame next? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the country next on his agenda is Palestine. With Arafat out of way the country will be put into compromising situations considering the alleged Roadmap to Peace. They saw Arafat as an obstacle to their Roadmap, but what they failed to acknowledge was that he was their solution, possibly the only one.

Simultaneously, Iran will be next and then Syria for 'harbouring terrorists'.

But controversially, I do give some credit to Bush. He is attempting to protect his country from the random, careless and dangerous games that anonymous terrorists are playing. Only, maybe he should stay in his country and not venture out as much.

Here in the UK most people were convinced Kerry would strike it lucky. Kerry being a Democrat and the Democrats being thinkers was what was needed we thought.

Maybe we wanted Kerry to win so that Blair would not compromise our own national security by pledging love to Bush. If Blair is our Bush we need a Kerry. Will the people of this country be strong minded enough to risk voting for the other parties in the next General Election.

I think not. We will stand by familiarity, just like the Americans did. Blair has led us into this and we will expect his party to rescue us from it. Blair will get in because Bush will have to deliver.

We were told Bush winning is bad news for the terrorists. I would say the opposite is true.